考研201英語（一）在線題庫每日一練（一百八十七）

本文提供考研201英語（一）在線題庫每日一練，以下為具體內(nèi)容

1、Over the past decade, thousands of patents have been granted for what are called business methods. Amazon.com received one for its “one-click” online payment system. Merrill Lynch got legal protection for an asset allocation strategy. One inventor patented a technique for lifting a box.Now the nation's top patent court appears completely ready to scale back on business-method patents, which have been controversial ever since they were first authorized 10 years ago. In a move that has intellectual-property lawyers abuzz, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said it would use a particular case to conduct a broad review of business-method patents. In re Bilski, as the case is known , is “a very big deal”, says Dennis D. Crouch of the University of Missouri School of Law. It “has the potential to eliminate an entire class of patents.”Curbs on business-method claims would be a dramatic about-face, because it was the Federal Circuit itself that introduced such patents with its 1998 decision in the so-called State Street Bank case, approving a patent on a way of pooling mutual-fund assets. That ruling produced an explosion in business-method patent filings, initially by emerging Internet companies trying to stake out exclusive rights to specific types of online transactions. Later, more established companies raced to add such patents to their files, if only as a defensive move against rivals that might beat them to the punch. In 2005, IBM noted in a court filing that it had been issued more than 300 business-method patents, despite the fact that it questioned the legal basis for granting them. Similarly, some Wall Street investment firms armed themselves with patents for financial products, even as they took positions in court cases opposing the practice.The Bilski case involves a claimed patent on a method for hedging risk in the energy market. The Federal Circuit issued an unusual order stating that the case would be heard by all 12 of the court's judges, rather than a typical panel of three, and that one issue it wants to evaluate is whether it should “reconsider” its State Street Bank ruling.The Federal Circuit's action comes in the wake of a series of recent decisions by the Supreme Court that has narrowed the scope of protections for patent holders. Last April, for example, the justices signaled that too many patents were being upheld for “inventions” that are obvious. The judges on the Federal Circuit are “reacting to the anti-patent trend at the Supreme Court”, says Harold C. Wegner, a patent attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.1.Business-method patents have recently aroused concern because of（  ）. 2.Which of the following is true of the Bilski case?3.The word “about-face” (Line 1, Para 3) most probably means （  ）.   4.We learn from the last two paragraphs that business-method patents （  ）.   5.Which of the following would be the subject of the text?

問題1

A、their limited value to businesses

B、their connection with asset allocation

C、the possible restriction on their granting

D、the controversy over their authorization

問題2

A、Its ruling complies with the court decisions.

B、It involves a very big business transaction.

C、It has been dismissed by the Federal Circuit.

D、It may change the legal practices in the U.S.

問題3

A、loss of good will

B、increase of hostility

C、change of attitude

D、enhancement of dignity

問題4

A、are immune to legal challenges

B、are often unnecessarily issued

C、lower the esteem for patent holders

D、increase the incidence of risks

問題5

A、A looming threat to business-method patents.

B、Protection for business-method patent holders.

C、A legal case regarding business-method patents.

D、A prevailing trend against business-method patents.

2、Bankers have been blaming themselves for their troubles in public. Behind the scenes, they have been taking aim at someone else: the accounting standard-setters. Their rules, moan the banks, have forced them to report enormous losses, and it's just not fair. These rules say they must value some assets at the price a third party would pay, not the price managers and regulators would like them to fetch.Unfortunately, banks' lobbying now seems to be working. The details may be unknowable, but the independence of standard-setters, essential to the proper functioning of capital markets, is being compromised. And, unless banks carry toxic assets at prices that attract buyers, reviving the banking system will be difficult.After a bruising encounter with Congress, America's Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) rushed through rule changes. These gave banks more freedom to use models to value illiquid assets and more flexibility in recognizing losses on long-term assets in their income statements. Bob Herz, the FASB's chairman, cried out against those who “question our motives.” Yet bank shares rose and the changes enhance what one lobbying group politely calls “the use of judgment by management.”European ministers instantly demanded that the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) do likewise. The IASB says it does not want to act without overall planning, but the pressure to fold when it completes its reconstruction of rules later this year is strong. Charlie McCreevy, a European commissioner, warned the IASB that it did “not live in a political vacuum” but “in the real world” and that Europe could yet develop different rules.It was banks that were on the wrong planet, with accounts that vastly overvalued assets. Today they argue that market prices overstate losses, because they largely reflect the temporary illiquidity of markets, not the likely extent of bad debts. The truth will not be known for years. But banks' shares trade below their book value, suggesting that investors are skeptical. And dead markets partly reflect the paralysis of banks which will not sell assets for fear of booking losses, yet are reluctant to buy all those supposed bargains.To get the system working again, losses must be recognized and dealt with. America's new plan to buy up toxic assets will not work unless banks mark assets to levels which buyers find attractive. Successful markets require independent and even combative standard-setters. The FASB and IASB have been exactly that, cleaning up rules on stock options and pensions, for example, against hostility from special interests. But by giving in to critics now they are inviting pressure to make more concessions.1.Bankers complained that they were forced to（  ）.2.According to the author, the rule changes of the FASB may result in （  ）.  3.According to Paragraph 4, McCreevy objects to the IASB's attempt to （  ）.  4.The author thinks the banks were “on the wrong planet” in that they （  ）.  5.The author's attitude towards standard-setters is one of（  ）.

問題1

A、follow unfavorable asset evaluation rules

B、collect payments from third parties

C、cooperate with the price managers

D、reevaluate some of their assets

問題2

A、the diminishing role of management

B、the revival of the banking system

C、the banks' long-term asset losses

D、the weakening of its independence

問題3

A、keep away from political influences

B、evade the pressure from their peers

C、act on their own in rule-setting

D、take gradual measures in reform

問題4

A、misinterpreted market price indicators

B、exaggerated the real value of their assets

C、neglected the likely existence of bad debts

D、denied booking losses in their sale of assets

問題5

A、satisfaction

B、skepticism

C、objectiveness

D、sympathy

3、On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona's immigration law Monday—a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration. But on the more important matter of the Constitution, the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration's effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states.In Arizona v. United States, the majority overturned three of the four contested provisions of Arizona's controversial plan to have state and local police enforce federal immigration law. The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial. Arizona had attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones.Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court's liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun. On the overturned provisions the majority held that Congress had deliberately “occupied the field,” and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal's privileged powers.However, the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement. That's because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.Two of the three objecting Justice—Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas—agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute. The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia, who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts.The 8-0 objection to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his objection as “a shocking assertion of federal executive power”. The White House argued that Arizona's laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities, even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter. In effect, the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with.Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them. But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could. It never did so. The administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress's immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.1.Three provisions of Arizona's plan were overturned because they（  ）.2.On which of the following did the Justices agree, according to Paragraph 4?3.It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition Acts （  ）.  4.The White House claims that its power of enforcement （  ）.  5.What can be learned from the last paragraph?

問題1

A、deprived the federal police of Constitutional powers

B、disturbed the power balance between different states

C、overstepped the authority of federal immigration law

D、contradicted both the federal and state policies

問題2

A、Federal officers' duty to withhold immigrants' information.

B、States' independence from federal immigration law.

C、States' legitimate role in immigration enforcement.

D、Congress's intervention in immigration enforcement.

問題3

A、violated the Constitution

B、undermined the states' interests

C、supported the federal statute

D、stood in favor of the states

問題4

A、outweighs that held by the states　

B、is dependent on the states' support

C、is established by federal statutes　

D、rarely goes against state laws

問題5

A、Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress.　

B、Justices intended to check the power of the Administration.

C、Justices wanted to strengthen its coordination with Congress.

D、The Administration is dominant over immigration issues.

4、The journal Science is adding an extra round of statistical checks to its peer-review process, editor-in-chief Marcia McNutt announced today. The policy follows similar efforts from other journals, after widespread concern that basic mistakes in data analysis are contributing to the irreproducibility of many published research findings. “Readers must have confidence in the conclusions published in our journal,” writes McNutt in an editorial. Working with the American Statistical Association, the journal has appointed seven experts to a statistics board of reviewing editors (SBoRE). Manuscript will be flagged up for additional scrutiny by the journal's internal editors, or by its existing Board of Reviewing Editors or by outside peer reviewers. The SBoRE panel will then find external statisticians to review these manuscripts. Asked whether any particular papers had impelled the change, McNutt said: “The creation of the ‘statistics board’ was motivated by concerns broadly with the application of statistics and data analysis in scientific research and is part of Science's overall drive to increase reproducibility in the research we publish.” Giovanni Parmigiani, a biostatistician at the Harvard School of Public Health, a member of the SBoRE group, says he expects the board to “play primarily an advisory role.” He agreed to join because he “found the foresight behind the establishment of the SBoRE to be novel, unique and likely to have a lasting impact. This impact will not only be through the publications in Science itself, but hopefully through a larger group of publishing places that may want to model their approach after Science.”John Ioannidis, a physician who studies research methodology, says that the policy is “a most welcome step forward” and “l(fā)ong overdue.”“Most journals are weak in statistical review, and this damages the quality of what they publish. I think that, for the majority of scientific papers nowadays, statistical review is more essential than expert review,” he says. But he noted that biomedical journals such as Annals of Internal Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association and The Lancet pay strong attention to statistical review.Professional scientists are expected to know how to analyze data, but statistical errors are alarmingly common in published research, according to David Vaux, a cell biologist. Researchers should improve their standards, he wrote in 2012, but journals should also take a tougher line, “engaging reviewers who are statistically literate and editors who can verify the process.” Vaux says that Science's idea to pass some papers to statisticians “has some merit, but a weakness is that it relies on the board of reviewing editors to identify ‘the papers that need scrutiny’ in the first place.”1.It can be learned from Paragraph 1 that（  ）.2.The phrase “flagged up” (Paragraph 2) is the closest in meaning to （  ）.  3.Giovanni Parmigiani believes that the establishment of the SBoRE may （  ）.  4.David Vaux holds that what Science is doing now （  ）.  5.Which of the following is the best title of the text?                    

問題1

A、science intends to simplify its peer-review process

B、journals are strengthening their statistical checks

C、few journals are blamed for mistakes in data analysis

D、lack of data analysis is common in research projects

問題2

A、found

B、revised

C、marked

D、stored

問題3

A、pose a threat to all its peers

B、meet with strong opposition

C、increase Science's circulation

D、set an example for other journals

問題4

A、adds to researchers' workload

B、diminishes the role of reviewers

C、has room for further improvement

D、is to fail in the foreseeable future

問題5

A、Science Joins Push to Screen Statistics in Papers.

B、Professional Statisticians Deserve More Respect.

C、Data Analysis Finds Its Way onto Editors' Desks.

D、Statisticians Are Coming Back with Science.

5、Two years ago, Rupert Murdoch's daughter, Elisabeth, spoke of the “unsettling dearth of integrity across so many of our institutions.” Integrity had collapsed, she argued, because of a collective acceptance that the only “sorting mechanism” in society should be profit and the market. But “it's us, human beings, we the people who create the society we want, not profit.’’Driving her point home, she continued: “It’s increasingly apparent that the absence of purpose, of a moral language within government, media or business could become one of the most dangerous goals for capitalism and freedom.” This same absence of moral purpose was wounding companies such as News International, she thought, making it more likely that it would lose its way as it had with widespread illegal telephone hacking.As the hacking trial concludes—finding guilty one ex-editor of the News of the World, Andy Coulson, for conspiring to hack phones, and finding his predecessor, Rebekah Brooks, innocent of the same charge—the wider issue of dearth of integrity still stands. Journalists are known to have hacked the phones of up to 5,500 people. This is hacking on an industrial scale, as was acknowledged by Glenn Mulcaire, the man hired by the News of the World in 2001 to be the point person for phone hacking. Others await trial. This long story still unfolds.In many respects, the dearth of moral purpose frames not only the fact of such widespread phone hacking but the terms on which the trial took place. One of the astonishing revelations was how little Rebekah Brooks knew of what went on in her newsroom, how little she thought to ask and the fact that she never inquired how the stories arrived. The core of her successful defence was that she knew nothing.In today's world, it has become normal that well-paid executives should not be accountable for what happens in the organisations that they run. Perhaps we should not be so surprised. For a generation, the collective doctrine has been that the sorting mechanism of society should be profit. The words that have mattered are efficiency, flexibility, shareholder value, business-friendly, wealth generation, sales, impact and, in newspapers, circulation. Words degraded to the margin have been justice, fairness, tolerance, proportionality and accountability.The purpose of editing the News of the World was not to promote reader understanding, to be fair in what was written or to betray any common humanity. It was to ruin lives in the quest for circulation and impact. Ms Brooks may or may not have had suspicions about how her journalists got their stories, but she asked no questions, gave no instructions—nor received traceable, recorded answers. 1.According to the first two paragraphs, Elisabeth was upset by（  ）.2.It can be inferred from Paragraph 3 that （  ）.  3.The author believes that Rebekah Brooks's defence （  ）.  4.The author holds that the current collective doctrine shows （  ）.  5.Which of the following is suggested in the last paragraph?

問題1

A、the consequences of the current sorting mechanism

B、companies' financial loss due to immoral practices

C、governmental ineffectiveness on moral issues

D、the wide misuse of integrity among institutions

問題2

A、Glenn Mulcaire may deny phone hacking as a crime

B、phone hacking will be accepted on certain occasions

C、Andy Coulson should be held innocent of the charge

D、more journalists may be found guilty of phone hacking

問題3

A、revealed a cunning personality

B、centered on trivial issues

C、was hardly convincing

D、was part of a conspiracy

問題4

A、generally distorted values

B、unfair wealth distribution

C、a marginalized lifestyle

D、a rigid moral code

問題5

A、The quality of writings is of primary importance.

B、Moral awareness matters in editing a newspaper.

C、Common humanity is central to news reporting.

D、Journalists need stricter industrial regulations.